studies in mutualist political econ
studies in mutualist political econ (2007) by kevin carson via 285 pg kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-studies-in-mutualist-political-economy]
notes/quotes:
4
Dedication: To my mother, Ruth Emma Rickert, without whose love and support I could never have done this.
5
Preface
Thus, individualist anarchism was an alternative both to the increasing statism of the mainstream socialist movement, and to a classical liberal movement that was moving toward a mere apologetic for the power of big business.
Shawn Wilbur has argued that the late-nineteenth century split between individualists and communists in the American anarchist movement (for which the ill-feeling between Benjamin Tucker and Johann Most is a good proxy) left the individualists marginalized and weak.
The Voluntary Cooperation Movement promotes the kinds of mutualist practice advocated by Proudhon. Elements of the nineteenth century radical tradition also survive under other names, in a variety of movements: Georgist, distributist, “human scale” technology, etc. Unfortunately, individualist anarchist economic thought has for the most part been frozen in a time warp for over a hundred years.
This book is an attempt to revive individualist anarchist political economy, to incorporate the useful developments of the last hundred years, and to make it relevant to the problems of the twenty-first century.
Part One starts with an assessment of the marginalist revolution and its claims to have demolished the labor theory of value, and then proceeds either to refute these criticisms or to incorporate them.
Part Two analyzes the origins of capitalism in light of this theoretical apparatus; it is an attempt to explicate, if the reader will pardon the expression, the laws of motion of state capitalist society—from its origins in statism, through its collapse from the internal contradictions inherent in coercion. We analyze capitalism in the light of individualist anarchism’s central insight: that labor’s natural wage in a free market is its product, and that coercion is the only means of exploitation. It is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market.
Part Three, finally, is a vision of mutualist practice, building both on our own previous theoretical analysis, and on the rich history of anarchist thought.
If there is one valuable practical insight in this entire book, it is the realization that coercive state policies are not necessary to remedy the evils of present-day capitalism. All these evils—exploitation of labor, monopoly and concentration, the energy crisis, pollution, waste—result from government intervention in the market on behalf of capitalists. The solution is not more government intervention, but to eliminate the existing government intervention from which the problems derive. A genuine free market society, in which all transactions are voluntary and all costs are internalized in price, would be a decentralized society of *human-scale **production, in which all of labor’s product went to labor, instead of to capitalists, landlords and government bureaucrats.
*not humanity scale ness (ie: mufleh humanity law et al).. if **production ness.. or any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
[skimmed most of it]
250
Jonathan Simcock, on the Total Liberty webpage, described a vision of Evolutionary Anarchism that included
…*Worker Co-operatives, Housing Co-operatives, self-employment, LETS schemes, Alternative Currencies, Mutual Banking, Credit Unions, tenants committees, Food Co-operatives, Allotments, voluntary organizations, peaceful protest and non-violent direct action and a host of similar activities are the means by which people begin to “behave differently”, to go beyond Anarchist theory, and begin to build the elements of a new society.
not new/diff with *those cancerous distractions.. those are sea world preoccupations/obsessions
252
The distinction between reform and revolution is mainly one of emphasis. For example, most revolutionary Marxists agree with Engels that much of the groundwork of socialism will be built within capitalism, until no further progressive development is possible. Only at that point will the transformation of “quantity into quality” take place, and the new society burst out of the older shell that constrains it. *And even those who believe the transition from capitalism to socialism can be largely managed peacefully probably recognize that some disruption will occur at the time of the final rupture
*not if designed for everyone.. ie: legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
253
In other words, mutualism means building the kind of society we want here and now, based on grass-roots organization for *voluntary cooperation and mutual aid— instead of waiting for the revolution. A character in Ken MacLeod’s The Star Fraction gave a description of socialism that might have come from a mutualist:
*but these are cancerous distractions today.. since now we have the means for a legit global detox leap
…what we always meant by socialism wasn’t something you forced on people, it was people *organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions…. And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the **closest to a free market you can get!
*rather.. still voluntary compliance if still thinking ie: co op.. collectives.. unions.. et al
**market ness is part of the cancerous distractions
Rothbard used to quote with approval Leonard Read’s claim that, if he had a magic button that would instantly eliminate the government, he would push it without hesitation. But it should be obvious that, regardless of whether or not one recognizes the validity of gradualism, *the state will not in fact be abolished overnight. And even if we had a “magic button” that would magically cause all the officials, weapons and buildings of the state to disappear, what would be the result? **If the majority of the public still had a statist mindset, and if there were ***no alternative libertarian institutions in place to take over the functions of the state, an even more authoritarian state would quickly fill the vacuum. As Benjamin Tucker argued,
*perhaps until now.. again.. now have means for global detox leap
**that’s why there is a detox as detox embed in the leap.. for (blank)’s sake
***if alt = something to take place of state.. then same song.. yes.. existing alt is huge (ie: costello screen\service law et al) and something we’ve not yet had before.. but that’s because we’ve not yet tried/seen the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
If government should be abruptly and entirely *abolished to-morrow, there would probably ensue a series of physical conflicts about land and many other things, ending in reaction and a revival of the old tyranny.
*that’s why abolition ness is only partially adequate .. ie: moten abolition law.. yes to build something new.. but if spend time/energy tearing down .. just perpetuates whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. any form of re ness is a cancerous distraction
He called instead for the *gradual abolition of government, “beginning with the downfall of the money and land monopolies and extending thence into one field after another, …accompanied by such a constant acquisition and steady spreading of social truth,” that the public would at last be prepared to accept the final stage of replacing government with **free contract even in the area of police protection.
*again.. gradual ness.. only leads to a perpetuation of the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. we need a means to leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. if we want the dance to dance
ie: humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..
In practice, regardless of semantic arguments over reformism versus revolution, most anarchists agree that our final goal is the abolition of the state, that it is unlikely to happen overnight, and that in the meantime we should do what we can to build a new society starting where we are now. We are therefore faced with the task of pushing the given system in the direction we want, and pushing until we reach our ultimate goal of abolishing the state altogether. That means, to recapitulate: 1) educational work; 2) building counter-institutions; and 3) pressuring the state from outside to retreat from society and scale back its activities.
three great ie’s of cancerous distractions
we need to try a legit nother way
Our emphasis should be on building this society as much as possible without seeking direct confrontation with the authority of the state. But I am not a political pacifist in the sense of ruling out such confrontation in principle. *No matter how industriously we work “within the shell of the old” society, at some point we will have to break out of the shell. **At that point either the state will initiate force in order to abort the new society, or it will be so demoralized as to collapse quickly under its own weight, like the Leninist regimes in 1989–91. But either way, the final transition will probably be abrupt and dramatic, rather messy, and will almost certainly involve at least some violence.
*exactly.. that’s why we start out of the shell.. ie: hari rat park law et al
only way we get to the root of problem
how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
ie: imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
again.. the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. the unconditional part of left-to-own-devices ness.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition
**all irrelevant cancerous distractions if vision is for all from the get to.. no more us & them ness..
which again .. can only happen sans any form of m\a\p
256
I do not advocate the extension of the state in any area of life, even temporarily or for tactical reasons—no exceptions. *And I will not be satisfied short of the final goal of eliminating the state altogether. But given the fact that we agree that incrementalism is a viable strategy, it makes a great deal of difference in what order we dismantle the state. Since all its functions are aimed, directly or indirectly, at furthering the political extraction of profits, **it stands to reason that the most central, structural supports of subsidy and privilege on which state capitalism depends should be the first to go; those that make it marginally more bearable for the lower classes should be the last to go.
*to me this is whalespeak.. won’t ever ‘eliminate’ state ness (to me that’s any form of m\a\p) unless we try a legit global re\set (aka: detox leap)
Benjamin Tucker was firmly in favor of this approach. He believed that the staged abolition of government should follow the order least likely to produce dislocation or injustice to labor. Given that abolition of the state meant its gradual dissolution in the economic organism, *“[t]he question before us is not… what measures and means of interference we are justified in instituting, but which ones of those already existing we should first lop off.“ For example, he referred with approval to Proudhon’s warning that abolishing the tariff before the money monopoly would be **“a cruel and disastrous policy,” throwing out of work those employed in protected industry “without the benefit of the insatiable demand for labor which a competitive money system would create.“
*cancerous distraction
**this is why we need the mindset of a sabbatical ish transition
258
The *enemy of the state must start with a **strategic picture of his own. It is not enough to oppose any and all statism, as such, without any ***conception of how particular examples of statism fit into the overall system of power. Each concrete example of statism must be grasped in its relation to the system of power as a whole, and the way in which the nature of the part is characterized by the whole to which it belongs. That is, we must examine the ways in which it functions together with other elements of the system, both coercive and market, to ****promote the interests of the class controlling the state.
*ie of cancerous distraction
**what we need: unjustifiable strategy ness..
***intellectness as cancerous distraction.. graeber can’t know law et al
****if have to do this.. red flag we’re doing it wrong.. if org around legit needs.. would be based on what every soul already craves
262
In building alternative forms of organization, as in rolling back the state, we should remember that our progress doesn’t depend on converting a majority of people to anarchism or finding people who agree with us on all issues. *We just have to appeal to the values we share with them on particular issues. And we don’t have to segregate ourselves into an ideologically pure, separatist movement of “real” anarchists and wait for the other 99 44/100% of society to come around. Progress isn’t all or nothing. As Larry Gambone argued in “An Anarchist Strategy Discussion,”
*rather.. we just have to org around legit needs.. that every soul already craves
…a mass (populist) orientation requires that one search for all the various beliefs and activities that are of a general libertarian and social nature *found among ordinary people. These would consist of **any form of decentralism, direct democracy, regionalism, opposition to government and regulation, all forms of voluntary association, free exchange and mutual aid.
*rather.. ordinary whales.. if **these cancerous distractions
In other words, we must approach people where they are, and make our agenda relevant to the things that concern them.
no agenda/relevance/concerns needed if org around legit needs.. deep enough to get to root of problem
270
*The free market is made to order for the purpose of avoiding centralized organization and hierarchy. When firms and self-employed individuals deal with each other through market, rather than federal relations, there are no organizations superior to them. Rather than **decisions being made by permanent organizations, which will inevitably serve as power bases for managers and “experts,” decisions will be made by the invisible hand of the marketplace.
*if market ness will have hierarchy.. need a means sans any form of m\a\p
**how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
Finally, Marxists and other anti-market socialists are deluded in their belief that the law of value can be superceded by production for “social use.” As the Austrians saw, even the actions of solitary individuals are in effect transactions, in which the disutility of labor is exchanged for other utilities. Production can never be undertaken solely with a view to use, without regard to exchange value. The reason goods have value today is that it requires effort or disutility to produce them. *With or without formal market exchange, there will still be an implicit exchange involved, labor for consumption, involved in the production process. It implies a judgment, if a tacit one, that the use value of the good is worth the disutility to the worker who produces it. And fairness and unfairness will continue to exist, although concealed (along with the law of value) behind a “collective” planning process. Either the labor entailed in producing the goods consumed by a worker will equal the labor he expends in production, or they will not. If not, somebody is being exploited. **The law of value is not simply a description of commodity exchange in a market society; it is a fundamental ethical principle.
*to me this is whalespeak.. we have no idea what legit free people are like.. how they dance
**fundamental to keeping us in sea world.. graeber values law et al.. graeber exchange law et al.. marsh exchange law et al.. 10-day-care-center\ness
271
Earlier, I wrote that with “honorable exceptions,” anarcho-capitalists favor a model of privatization built around the capitalist corporation. Karl Hess was perhaps the first and greatest of these. In 1969 he wrote,
Libertarianism is a people’s movement and a liberation movement. It seeks the sort of open, *non-coercive society in which the people, the living, free distinct people may voluntarily associate, dis-associate, and, as they see fit, participate in the decisions affecting their lives. His means a truly free market in everything from ideas to idiosyncrasies. It means people free collectively to organize the resources of their immediate community or individualistically organize them; it means the freedom to have a community-based and supported judiciary when wanted, none where not, or private arbitration services where that is seen as most desirable. The same with police. The same with schools, hospitals, factories, farms, laboratories, parks and pensions. Liberty means the right to shape your own institutions.
*only way to get to non coercion ness is sans any form of m\a\p.. otherwise.. no matter how well intentioned.. it will end up as people telling other people what to do
Or as (the lamentably late) Samuel Konkin wrote, “The Market is the sum of all voluntary human action. If one acts non-coercively, one is part of the Market.“
oi.. whalespeak
272
At times, however, Tucker used language implying that the state would, while maintaining organizational integrity, lose the character of a state. In regard to protection services, for example, he wrote:
“But,” it will be asked of the Anarchists…, “what shall be done with those individuals who *undoubtedly will persist in violating the social law by invading their neighbors?”
*only because we’ve not yet tried/seen the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
274
Taking it to the next step, *imagine a community of a few dozen people of varying trades, using their own local currency (LETS, mutual banknotes, etc.) to exchange among themselves. Again, because of the limited number of participants, and the high degree of predictability of their future needs (barring any unusual circumstances), it is likely that (so long as each participant produces something needed by most people on a fairly steady basis) each participant will feel secure in his ability to obtain his minimum need of the commodities produced by each of the other participants; and each participant will likewise feel secure in a market for his output, at least to the extent of collective demand for it within the group.
*don’t have to imagine it.. so many have already tried it.. doesn’t work
need to try a nother way
__________
_________
________
________
________
_______
be you. 